A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard

from the they-said-what-now? dept

We already know that today's SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are totally stacked in favor of the bill. But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what's about to be said. Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it -- it's all embedded below. However, here's a taste of what's going to be said... with some additional commentary (of course).

First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office). She should be here to defend the public and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn't happen. But, that's not how the Copyright Office rolls. Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce's key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who's in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently worked at the US Copyright Office). If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you're not going to get it from Pallante.

It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail. The premise of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns and can license to others certain exclusive rights – a premise that has served the nation well since 1790. Congress has repeatedly acted to improve enforcement provisions in copyright law over the years, including in the online environment. SOPA is the next step in ensuring that our law keeps pace with infringers....

[....]

The response provided by SOPA is serious and comprehensive. It requires all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks, to play a role in protecting copyright interests – an approach I endorse. Combating online infringement requires focus and commitment. It should be obvious that we cannot have intermediaries working at cross-purposes.

In other words, the successful tech industry should be hindered and shackled because my friends in Hollywood are too clueless to adjust their business models. Really?

SOPA is also measured. It appropriately provides much broader tools and flexibility to the Attorney General than it provides to copyright owners. This is a sound policy choice at this time. The Department of Justice has experience fighting online infringers, will use resources carefully, must exercise prosecutorial discretion in bringing actions, and must plead its case to the court and obtain a court-issued order before proceeding. Put another way, while the copyright industries are extremely important (and certainly a point of pride with respect to the U.S. economy), SOPA recognizes that many sectors rely on, invest in, and contribute to the success of the Internet.

Almost none of that is accurate. It is not measured. It is vague, broad and dangerous. The Justice Department's "experience" going after infringers has been to take down websites with no notice based on false info from copyright holders... and then to threaten those who seek to appeal with criminal charges. This is not "using resources carefully," it's government sponsored censorship.

It is for this reason that SOPA puts only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and provides the Attorney General with the sole authority to seek orders against search engines and Internet service providers. This is not to say that we should not continue to assess Internet piracy and the impact of SOPA or whether additional measures or adjustments may be needed. Indeed, SOPA assigns ongoing studies to the Copyright Office and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for these very purposes. But I do think SOPA provides the right calibration at this time.

First off, the "limited tools" include the ability to completely cut off funding to any website based solely on accusations. Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."

Furthermore, how the hell can she say that this is "the right calibration," when even she admits this issue has not been studied yet? The bill is completely "shoot first, measure later," with no details on how it's effectiveness -- or harmfulness -- will be measured.

As with any legislation, SOPA deserves and can only benefit from a robust discussion. As the Committee works to further improve and refine the bill, I know it will fully consider a variety of perspectives and suggestions, including from my fellow witnesses. This said, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to protect the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and I urge the Committee to move forward with this in mind.

Yes, a robust discussion that leaves out nearly everyone opposed to the bill, and only allows a single party -- one easily dismissed -- to speak about concerns on the bill. A robust discussion that leaves out public interest groups, despite Copyright's entire purpose being for the benefit of the public. This is a shameful bit of testimony from the Head of the Copyright Office, and one that guarantees her a tarnished legacy in her role.

From there, she goes on to defend the US blacklist of sites the Attorney General decides are dedicated to infringement by (1) repeating the US Chamber's debunked talking points, (2) praising ICE's highly questionable domain seizures, which are currently being litigated (a fact she conveniently ignores) and (3) quoting (of course) Floyd Abrams, leaving out that he was paid by the MPAA to give that opinion. Even worse, she quotes the really questionable part of his claim:

It also bears repeating that injunctions are not at odds with the First Amendment. As noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams has observed, they are "a longstanding, constitutionally sanctioned way to remedy and prevent copyright violations."

This is true, but highly misleading. Injunctions are allowed against those infringing. But that's not what SOPA is about. SOPA is about issuing injunctions on innocent third parties. That's what we're concerned about. And for Pallante to ignore that point is really unfortunate.

She then goes on to defend the private right of action to kill off websites based on a single accusation. She claims, laughably, that because the private right of action only leads to injunctions, rather than monetary rewards, there's little incentive to abuse. Wait. Is Ms. Pallante totally ignorant of the past decade plus of the DMCA? The DMCA takedown process also is basically about blocking content and not about monetary relief, and yet it's widely abused, with some estimates suggesting that over 30% of DMCA takedowns are questionable. The problem with SOPA (totally ignored again) is that unlike the DMCA -- which targets the specific content -- SOPA will kill off entire sites.

Even more stunning: rather than suggesting that such abuses may come from copyright holders sending bogus takedowns, she worries instead that payment processors and ad networks may ignore such takedowns -- and hints that if anything, the bill may need refinement on that front. Whoa. It's like an alternative universe where everything is mirrored. Again, we know what happens. We have the less draconian DMCA already and see how widely it's abused. And we see that those who receive takedowns generally abide by them.

Speaking of the DMCA, she pretends -- totally against the text of the actual bill -- that nothing in SOPA will impact the DMCA. This is hilarious. Why would anyone use the DMCA to take down a specific piece of content when they can now kill off an entire site using SOPA? Amusingly, she points to the fact that payment providers and ad networks face no monetary liability under SOPA... but ignores that just two paragraphs above, she was hinting that perhaps the law should be changed to include such liability to make sure they comply. This is the ultimate in cynical, obnoxious politics. Put in that one clause that makes you able to pretend something is reasonable (no monetary punishment!) and then be ready to remove that the second the bill is in place.

Finally, she talks about how "pleased" she is that SOPA turns streaming into a felony. Apparently Pallante would prefer people no longer stream videos any more. Has she even used the internet? Amusingly, she cites YouTube as an example of a legal source for streaming... ignoring the fact that under SOPA, YouTube likely wouldn't have even existed. It's as if she doesn't even understand the bill she's supporting and what it will do to the technology world.

And people wonder why so many Americans think copyright law is a joke? Perhaps they should look at the Copyright boss.

Next, we've got MPAA VP Michael O'Leary. His testimony is really worthy of having been written in Hollywood, seeing as it kicks off with a tearjerker of a story about the poor, poor stunt coordinator, "who depends on the residual payments he earns to help support his wife and three children between productions." Of course, the rest of the world doesn't get to sit back and get a check for work they did in the past, but actually has to keep working to support their families. Of course, how much do random key grips, stunt coordinators and boom mic operators (the favorites for these multi-millionaires to exploit in this kind of way) really make from residuals? It's a lot less than these kinds of testimonies suggest.

O'Leary continues to pull at heart strings, by trying to rope all sorts of other businesses into the movie and TV industry including (I'm not joking) the dry cleaners that serve the cast and crew on location. Apparently, without movies, dry cleaners go out of business. Think of the poor dry cleaners!Of course, you could easily counter with thousands of small businesses built on the internet and through technology that will be stifled by SOPA. Ignoring this and pretending that only the movie industry sends money flowing through the economy is ridiculous. Anyone with a bit of common sense should see through the ploy. Unfortunately, this is testimony before Congress.

O'Leary continues to spin yarns. Next up, he suggests that the real reason people use computers, mobile phones or gaming systems is to watch a movie or TV show. This is the way Hollywood has always viewed the internet, by the way. They think it's a broadcast medium, whose main purpose is to supply professionally created content to the masses. That's why SOPA makes sense to them. They don't realize that such uses are pretty far down the chain of reasons why people use the internet. The internet is a communications medium first. But you wouldn't know that to hear O'Leary spin. You see, the internet is really just an "important avenue" for delivering movies and TV shows, and it should be locked down for all other uses, I guess.

Then there's this:

First, it is clear from the language of H.R. 3261 that it is meant to apply only to rogue websites, and not to legitimate platforms. The definitions in the bill are very narrow and rooted in longstanding Supreme Court precedent with which U.S. based sites must already comply.

I'm sorry, but he must have a different copy of the bill. The one I read says that you can be declared a rogue website if the primary functions of your site "enable" or "facilitate" infringement. That applies to pretty much every site that allows any sort of user-generated content.

Later, O'Leary (as he's done in the past) mocks the concerns of the very architects of DNS about how SOPA will create massive online security problems -- a view supported by tons of independent review. We heard rumors that the MPAA was adamant with the Judiciary Committee that DNS blocking had to remain in the bill, and made it clear that they would run cover by mocking those who highlight this as being technically incompetent. That's on display here. O'Leary basically says, "if SOPA breaks your little DNSSEC project, well, just fix it."

Opponents point to the DNSSEC code and claim that it is not compatible with the site blocking or filtering technology envisioned by H.R. 3261. This argument conveniently ignores not only the history of the creation of DNSSEC but also the very nature of Internet protocols, which is simply this: when new developments or circumstances require changes to these codes, the codes change. Any software engineer will tell you that no development process stops at version 1.0. Today is no different.

This level of total ignorance concerning the technology in question should actually be exhibit A for why DNS shouldn't be touched in this bill. This isn't a "fixable" problem. The requirements of SOPA make DNSSEC impossible. That's the point.

Given his level of ignorance of technology, he then doubles down, by insisting that -- contrary to nearly the entire tech industry's claims -- SOPA wouldn't stifle innovation or investment in tech. His "evidence" is the fact that the tech industry has complained about other expansions of copyright in the past.

Except... what he misses is that the complaints in the past were either accurate (plenty of innovation was stifled due to changes in copyright law -- just look how long it took to get from Napster to Spotify, for example) or those complaints helped shape the parts of those laws that mitigated the problems. For example, many of the complaints that people point to concerning the DMCA were what forced the safe harbors to be added to the DMCA. It's pretty obnoxious to point to the complaints that resulted in softening the impact of the DMCA as evidence that we shouldn't complain at all.

And, really, if we're going to be crying "chicken little," O'Leary really shouldn't be the first to throw stones. As we've detailed, it's his industry (and, quite frequently, his employer specifically) who have a much longer and more hyperbolic history of claiming that the sky is falling -- including in his testimony today, where he cites all sorts of ridiculous and debunked stats about how much trouble piracy is causing his industry... an industry that continues to set records at the box office every single year.

Next up, we've got Pfizer's Chief Security Officer, John Clark. He talks about the threats and problems of counterfeit medicines, something that no one denies is a problem. Oh, and his previous job? Working for ICE, of course. Much of his testimony covers case studies of counterfeit drugs rings that were found and prosecuted under existing law. It's not quite clear why we need SOPA since existing law seems to be working. The main complaint is that existing law doesn't punish people enough -- such as a case where someone received "only" 78 months in jail for counterfeit drugs. Nowhere in his testimony does he actually address what's in SOPA. Seriously. All he does is talk about how they need greater punishment for counterfeit drugs. Um, great. So have someone write a bill that actually does that. Not one that has broad powers to shut down legitimate websites around the globe on a whim.

Then we've got Paul Almeida, from the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO's involvement is often used to show how this bill "protects workers." Except there's little evidence to actually support that... and don't expect to hear any such evidence from Almeida either. Almeida makes three key points, all of which are misleading or inaccurate. Let's go through them:

In the immortal words of the internet: [citation needed]. We've yet to see any credible evidence to support this, and tons of evidence suggesting the exact opposite. Even the very framers of US copyright law made it quite clear that such monopolies should be used rarely and with a light touch, because if they're too strong, they harm American workers, jobs, incomes and benefits.

Second, counterfeit goods endanger workers, both as workers and as consumers.

Except, again, the actual evidence suggests that the rates of counterfeiting are massively exaggerated, as is the "harm" of counterfeiting. Yes, there are some cases where there is definite harm. But those are pretty rare. Many cases of counterfeiting involve people knowingly buying fake products, as an aspirational buy -- with studies showing that many later buy the real products when they can afford them. In such cases, there is no harm. That said, we don't deny there are cases where harm does occur. But if that's the problem, let's write a law that focuses narrowly on that harm. SOPA is not that law.

Even more ridiculous? His "support" for this claim is the story of 18,500 counterfeit smoke detectors distributed in Atlanta. It's no coincidence that one of the major supporters of this bill used that very same story in our own comments recently. Which allowed commenter Josh to totally dismantle the story, and show that it had absolutely nothing to do with "rogue sites," but rather a government duped into buying counterfeit detectors. In other words, this has nothing to do with SOPA. At all.

Okay, let's take it up a notch on the ridiculous scale. Almeida apparently reads Techdirt. But rather than recognizing that the counterfeit smoke detector story has nothing to do with rogue websites, he accuses us of defamation, for mocking firefighters for being pro-SOPA. Well, we stand by our point. Firefighters aren't experts on copyright law or on innovation, and their complaint about bogus smoke detectors? It's got absolutely nothing to do with SOPA. But, thanks for quoting us in a Congressional hearing.

Third, freedom of speech is not the same as lawlessness on the Internet. There is no inconsistency between protecting an open Internet and safeguarding intellectual property.

Totally misleading (to the point of being intellectually dishonest). No one is defending "lawlessness on the Internet." Believe it or not, there's a range between "lawlessness on the Internet" and "putting up tools that lead to massive collateral damage on legitimate sites and speech." No one is saying that stopping infringement hurts free speech. What we're saying is that the overreach of this law will hinder free speech, either blocking it directly or stopping important services that enable free speech.

Moving on... we've got Linda Kirkpatrick from MasterCard. As noted yesterday, Visa is actually officially against these bills, which makes this one at least somewhat interesting, because the story we'd been hearing was that MasterCard was in favor of them. But Kirkpatrick's testimony is actually kind of surprising. While we expected it to be very pro-SOPA... it turns out that she's very concerned about the massive compliance and liability costs of the bill. Kirkpatrick explains how MasterCard works, and goes to great lengths to say it's against the company's policy to use its cards for any transactions that break the law. And it already has an existing anti-piracy policy, which allows law enforcement and rights holders to bring such infringement using its cards to the company's attention. It then explains its investigation and notification policy. This is all very interesting... and basically makes an anti-SOPA point: given that MasterCard already does this, why does it need SOPA? In fact, it's only real comments on SOPA itself are to note that the five day period to respond to the private right of action is way too short for MasterCard to respond appropriately:

Upon receiving a copy of an order or receiving notice from a rights holder, there are many circumstances that may arise which make a five-day window to complete the required actions not workable for a four-party payment network, such as MasterCard. For example, simply identifying the acquirer for an Internet site may take several days depending upon how long it takes for the alleged infringer to submit payments to its acquirer. The process becomes even more complex if the acquirer does not respond or asks for an extension because of local jurisdiction or other issues. Additionally, providing the merchant an opportunity to respond (in the case of a notice from a rights holder) also requires time. Moreover, confirming that a merchant may no longer accept payment from our brand for an infringing product may also take time. MasterCard is committed to begin this process within five days. However, MasterCard urges the Committee not to set an artificial deadline for the performance of a specific action as it may present impossible compliance challenges in some circumstances.

And also that the seven day response to injunctions is too short:

Under the bill, service of a copy of a court order by a rights holder on a payment network provider would trigger an obligation of the payment network provider to file with the court a certification of receipt not later than seven days after service. In MasterCard’s view, this obligation would impose material costs on payment network providers without a commensurate benefit. The process would require additional employee resourcing, the retention of qualified local counsel, and the payment of any applicable court fees. Moreover, the bill provides a rights holder the ability to seek the imposition of monetary sanctions on a payment network provider that does not comply with the court certification process, even though rights holders also have a remedy if a payment network provider does not take the required measures in response to a court order. The certification and sanctions approach is at odds with the cooperative approach that MasterCard and others have taken in their efforts to work together against online intellectual property piracy through the best practices and, in the case of MasterCard, our Anti-Piracy Policy.

She's also worried about the liability that can be placed on payment providers. This is especially interesting, because so many SOPA defenders -- including Pallante -- continually hammer on the fact that there's no additional liability for payment processors. However, MasterCard says that's not clear at all:

...it is important that the bill be clarified regarding the liability protection for payment network providers that receive notice from a rights holder of an allegedly infringing Internet site. While the bill contemplates that a rights holder may pursue a court order against such a site if a payment network provider does not complete certain required actions within the five-day window of time, the bill does not provide that the pursuit of such a court order is a rights holder’s sole remedy in that context. It is vitally important to MasterCard that it not face a claim from a rights holder for failing to take action on a rights holder’s notice when the rights holder has an ability to seek a court order against the allegedly infringing site and has the ability to enforce the bill against a payment network provider that has received a copy of the court order and not fulfilled its obligations under the bill related to the court order.

It actually goes on in this way for a while. Basically, this is the surprise of the hearing. MasterCard was expected to be pro-SOPA, but instead highlights the massive liability and compliance costs that are likely to come from the bill.

So that's the basics of what will be heard at today's hearings. I'm sure we'll be back later on with more details of the questions and discussions. Unfortunately, with the deck so stacked, it's unlikely we'll learn that much new...

Re:

If the government cares as much about the poor dry cleaners as it's about to pretend to, maybe it will consider repealing a tariff on imported hangers, rather than just protecting the US's only remaining hanger manufacturer.

Re: Re:

Using apples and oranges analogies is such an effective debate tactic...

btw, I see Masnick has reverted to outright lying in his desperate attempt to save piracy; even including throwing up a pop-up here saying the site is censored, despite there being no chance of techdirt being blocked by SOPA.

Re: Re: Re:

It's not apples and oranges. Holding, say, Google responsible for a spongebob video someone uploads (and that Google has advocated you not do) is indeed analogous to holding Home Depot responsible for selling someone a hammer that they then use to bludgeon someone to death.

In the first instance, the person hasn't uploaded copyrighted works before; the second, the bludgeoning is his first murder.

Re: Re: Re:

Techdirt has already received many false DMCA claims. Right now, he has the power to reject them. The same cannot be said for SOPA where the decision to reject or defend is made by a 4th party who has a very real disincentive to reject it.

But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.

Re:

Don't confuse them with logic. The internet grifters think they have some sort of right to your work, and they will shout from the roof tops to protect that "right".

None of them want to admit that, except for the protection of a single clause of DMCA, they would be breaking the law, and their business models would fail.

With SOPA, those DMCA protections will be more narrowly used, and those who used the old "we don't actually host the content" excuse for infringement will find themselves out of a job, unless you consider servicing Bubba in the big house as a job.

Mike's all out offensive today is just laughable, and shows Techdirt to be nothing more than a lobbyist website. Mike, did you register as a lobbyist yet?

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Being so smug really degrades your credibility and makes you look like an a**. I'm betting you're going to get what you want, our Congress is corrupt and will vote exactly as you tell them.

There simply is no need to go around name calling and being a verbal bully. I'm guessing you think of yourself as a better person than that.

And once again, Mike provides a blog that gives you great insight in to what is important to many people that don't see the issues the same way you do. This blog provides you with a wealth of information to make better, more informed decisions. And yet you resort to name calling like a small child. Shame on you.

Anyway, I'm going to make sure to vote that corrupt congress out. Hey, I'm now politically motivated! It's not all bad...

Re: Re: Re:

I'm not smug, I am just endlessly satisfied to see the law makers in Washington addressing and working to knock down the bullshit blinds that pirates and their enablers have been hiding behind for 10 years.

Smug, arrogant, and downright nasty comments from the likes of Brokep are exactly what is doing your side in. Nasty, arrogant, middle finger attitude makes it hard to find sympathy.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, actually I am very much about the facts, I just don't want to waste time discussing hyperbole and bullshit "what if" scenerios. Scaremongering and nasty comments (like calling he meetings a "lovefest") don't add anything to the discussion. They just make it sound like someone has a bad case of the sour grapes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Lovefest" seems apt. Unless you can give me a logical reason as to why the committee is so stacked in favor and others who were against it weren't allowed to participate. Please explain that to me. Don't dance around it and attack Mike, don't attack some other argument, don't make some other justification. Just answer the question as to why they stacked the committee. They clearly blocked anti-SOPA parties from participating. Explain this to me and how it's not corrupt in anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's not a lovefest because, guess what? We the people are represented by all of the members of the committee.

The only groups that were excluded were those who were going to show up and make more vague emotional hand waving "breaking the internet" rants, who would have little to add to the discussion and might actually detract from it.

It's also important to realize that criminals rarely get a seat at the table to debate why their actions are "right" in some manner. It's not like TPB is going to get to come have a sit down to discuss the advantages of piracy, right?

So can you please show me actual stakeholders, actual people directly invovled in the legal content industry, who would be hurt and won't get their say?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I was not represented at this meeting. You like to think that I was, but you cannot name a single group that represents me and was present at this hearing. I am not rich, I am not a technologist, I do not pirate content. Hell, I don't even have a credit card. And by the way? 'endlessly satisfied' may not be smug, when you are satisfied with the frustration of others I believe the term is 'schadenfreude.'

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If a company in Sweden told an American that what they were doing is illegal and they must stop, even though what the American was doing was entirely legal in the U.S., I think the American would be even smugger than the Swede.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nobody is telling them to stop - they are only telling them that their products will not be visible in the US, and that they cannot use US based companies to process payments for their activity, as it would be illegal for those companies to do so.

They can keep doing whatever they are doing that is legal in their country, they will however not be allowed to offer it to the US.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, they will be able to offer it in the US. They're just not allowed to do business with any US business. This will not resolve any problems, this will just put the liability on actual US based systems.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Only their domain name will be blocked, and even then only for a subset of the US internet. One of the results of SOPA is that using an alternate DNS system for non-piracy-related activities will become increasingly common out of necessity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

dont worry, I figure the people that understand the internet are A) going to make more money routing around the stupid, and/or B) stand back, watch it crash and giggle when all the BIG CONTENT get burned down by the riots...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't think you understand who this law affects, it doesn't affect pirates it affects business, so pirates will continue to give you the finger for another ten years and beyond.

Doubt?

I see nothing in that law that would stop me from ripping a DVD or sending a copy to a friend and he sending a copy to his other friends, are you going to injunction Hotmail, Gmail? Are you going to stop encryption for secure communications?

Of course not you don't have that power, the government doesn't have that power or to be more precise I doubt they have the balls to do it like in China and even they stopped their attempts in that front because of security concerns.

The only thing SOPA does is harms business and make them bitches to a handful of self-centered people who can't see the writings on the wall and like the Berlin Wall that one will fall too, it may take a couple of decades, but you all will find yourselves in a better world without copyrights.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I want to buy... I want to buy HD or SD versions of the latest movies that I can watch on my TV. I want to go and watch the latest blockbuster movie at the Cinema but also buy a DVD of the film on my way out if I like it. I want to be able to watch the latest American TV programmes streamed to my UK address on the same day as its aired in the US. I want to be able to buy music digitally that reflects the limited cost of the downloaded files as opposed to the greater price required to recoup the costs of the CD, insert and plastic case....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You want to buy... but you aren't willing to pay.

You want the programs streamed to the UK? No problem. Just be prepared to pay for them. It's not cheap, the people buying the rights to the shows in the UK are buying them 2 years past their air date to keep the costs down, so they can afford them.

Reality has a bad way of getting in the way of what you want. The reality is that the product isn't available in your market, or in the way you want it (like buying the DVD on the way out of the theater), and it's unlikely to change for all sorts of business and legal issues.

My suggestion is that you start looking in the UK at what causes US programs to be so expensive to put on the air. Find out what in your local market can be changed, what protectionist stuff is in place, what mandated "local culture" is limit your options, and work to clear that up. Work to fix the issues of local labeling, language, and the thousands of other things that stop the product from being legally available to you. Work to clear up the obstacles, because the sellers can't do it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Reality has a bad way of getting in the way of what you want. The reality is that the product isn't available in your market, or in the way you want it (like buying the DVD on the way out of the theater), and it's unlikely to change for all sorts of business and legal issues.

No, the reality is that there are incredible new technologies that have eliminated virtually all those obstacles, but the industry refuses to embrace them. If "business issues" are preventing them, then they are really terrible businesspeople.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've said many times: Netflix/Lovefilm, Hulu, Pandora, whoever - I have money here waiting for you. I'm just waiting for the day when these assholes allow you to collect it.

"My suggestion is that you start looking in the UK at what causes US programs to be so expensive to put on the air."

Regional licensing agreements, enforced by the US rights holders perhaps?

"Work to fix the issues of local labeling, language, and the thousands of other things that stop the product from being legally available to you"

This has nothing to do with streaming content online, you moron, especially language (unless you think that the UK and US have different languages - you seem like the sort of idiot who might).

There is no technical reason why someone who wants to access the English language US version of a product via streaming cannot do so. That's why the same content is being "pirated" like you idiots keep whining. The only block is your own industry's practices and models.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You cannot seem to see the content grifters for what they are."

I'll repeat until you assholes actually take notice (a long time, it seems): I will support you against any pirate sources on the day you offer content that's at least as valuable as the content offered by pirates (not region controlled or DRMed, reasonably priced, accessible in the quality and format desired by the consumer).

Until that day, you will not get support, as you are doing a very poor job of running your own businesses. You expect me to support the removal of free speech rights, first sale right, fair use rights and competition in the marketplace because you can't run your own industry in a profitable matter? Screw you.

Re:

If these media companies can't find a way to make money without resorting to rhetoric like 'OMG PIRATES! KILL THEM! KILL THEM WITH FIRE!', then their business model is bad and they need to adapt and find a new one.

The tech companies don't make money off infringing on works. And that's also not what most tech companies are angry about.
The danger in SOPA is that any tech company can be accused of infringing, and then it's off the air for that tech company. And there is prior art that suggests that the MPAA and the RIAA will do that. (Re: the "rogue sites" list from the RIAA that contained websites that promoted the RIAA's artists, without distributing the music)

Re: Re: Re:

What part of Twitter is infringing? What part of Google is infringing? What part of Facebook is infringing? Do you have proof that they make money solely on infringing other people's copyright?

Yes, it's about greed, but not on the part of the web2.0 companies, but on the part of the media conglomerates that are desperately trying to get back into the golden 70s and 80s. When money was falling from the skies.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"What part of Twitter is infringing? What part of Google is infringing? What part of Facebook is infringing?"

According to these morons, all of it because someone might post a link to copyrighted content at some point. Apparently, this means that every penny they earn is taken from "infringing content" and they deserve to be shut down, even if they had no control over the link and the infringing content's hosted elsewhere.

Re: Re:

That's the real issue. I can allege Techdirt infringes on my copyright (which can be real or totally bogus...like many DMCA notices are).

BAM!!

There goes all ad revenue and income for Techdirt. Techdirt's only avenue of recourse is to tell the credit companies and others that it's not true...then hope they believe it. Since the credit processors really only have an obligation to remove Techdirt (and never to reinstate them)...they will do what is required and remove them and rarely reinstate.

(This is exactly what happens with the DMCA. A host doesn't have to remove things in response to a DMCA notice, but they're rewarded if they do. SOPA is setup similarly but on a much more damaging scale.)

So with your income slashed, Techdirt's only recourse is to go to court and pay for a lawyer for as long as is required to get a ruling. This can be ages, especially for a start up without a large pile of cash to sit on. Then the remedy if they do win and get reinstated, they're okay from then on but are left without the revenue from all the time betweeen.

It's insanely rough on the accused with zero consequences for incorrect accuastions.

Re: Re: Re:

Umm, no.

Sorry, you fail. You can make those allegations, but first the receiving party can do a little due diligence and find out that their claims appear to be fraudulent, and in good faith they can continue to do business.

Further, Techdirt could then sue your stupid ass into the ground for your baseless accusations.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Techdirt could sue, but let's look at similar analogs to see what would happen.

The DMCA also allows for that remedy. It is almost never brought to bear because it is too risky. It requires a lengthy legal battle, that will be costly. You have to front some cash for the lawyers. In court, there are no garauntees so you have to assume a fair amount of risk. Also, as an accused you've been cut off from nearly all forms of income so how are you going to operate in the meantime?

The credit companies, advertisers, etc. have zero reason to do any due diligence. The law says they remove it and they have a short window to do it. Again, the DMCA shows a pretty clear analog. Even if something is clearly a fair use issue, it's brought down by the hosts.

Classic example: McCain's campaign ads during the last presidential race were almost certainly a fair use of some TV clips but Youtube took them down b/c they're legally rewarded for doing it and recieve no legal benefit by leaving them up. You can be sure payment processors, advertisers, etc will work the exact same way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The DMCA also allows for that remedy. It is almost never brought to bear because it is too risky."

Not too risky - just that the risk didn't weigh well against the "loss". Specifically, one single video off of youtube, 1 minute long, of a dancing baby with background music, isn't a very good target. The benefit of fixing it (the video stays online!) versus the risk (legal costs and perhaps judgement against) just doesn't add up.

Now, take youtube down completely. You don't think they will "take the risk" to fight it?

SOPA ups the stakes on both sides, and finally puts the content grifters at the same "risk" level as the content makers. Seems like the playing field is levelling out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

SOPA ups the stakes on both sides, and finally puts the content grifters at the same "risk" level as the content makers. Seems like the playing field is levelling out.

So where's the provision in SOPA to have all of an entertainment company's service providers cut them off if they falsely claim copyright? Now THAT would be even - Warner Bros., Viacom and their ilk would have to be more careful about targeting videos that they themselves uploaded, just as YouTube and other platforms would have to be more careful about infringing content. Artists who have had their work falsely claimed by a studio that doesn't actually own it could have Visa & Mastercard cut off all payment processing for that studio by sending a letter.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why would it be "even"? Those companies are not using the internet to profit from anyone else's work, they aren't pirating anything.

They ARE profiting from someone else's work. Becky Meir is an editor for Basketball wives which you can watch on VH1 for free. She's profiting from someone else's story. Where's the takedown of VH1 for profiting off other people?

The problem starts and ends with people being clueless about how to compete against piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why would it be "even"? Those companies are not using the internet to profit from anyone else's work, they aren't pirating anything.

If they send false takedown notices, then they are harming their competition for their own profit... what's the difference? Or are you saying that copyfraud without direct profit is okay? Because in that case, on your level playing field, I guess infringement without direct profit is okay too. Well, that's a start! Thanks for playing.

You have to remember where the problem starts, and it starts with piracy.

Hahaha. And this demonstrates why you are failing, and will continue to fail. I hate to break it to you, but denying reality rarely works out in the long run.

So while I understand your angry outburst, it's very, very misdirected, and once again wouldn't even anything out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If they send false takedown notices, then they are harming their competition for their own profit... what's the difference? Or are you saying that copyfraud without direct profit is okay? "

What is amazing is that you claim to be a writer, but you are horrible at reading - or you are intentionally being an idiot to goad me on. Either way, I already gave you the answer, if you can't read, I can't help you ou.

"Hahaha. And this demonstrates why you are failing, and will continue to fail. I hate to break it to you, but denying reality rarely works out in the long run."

Yet there you are, being anti-SOPA when you know it will be the law of the land soon enough, and it will be incredible hard to put your "sampled art" up on sites without permission from the original artists. Sucks to be you. When you stop denying reality, you maybe can grow up and see the world as a whole, not just through the little hole in your (mental) cage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Heh. Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots. You are in for a rude awakening when you discover how much smarter the people who support a free and open internet are than the people who support draconian anti-free-speech laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The issue is even if I'm accused, and I fight back against a fraudulant claim I'm totally screwed in the meantime. Litigation drags on forever. Then it is appealed and it drags on further.

It's not like my one file got knocked off Youtube. It's my entire online business was just F'd over based on an accusation. If it's a conviction, that's one thing... but it's not.

You can be sure it'll be used to harm competition, kill competiters, force licensing agreements where none are needed, and generally bully smaller businesses.

There aren't many businesses that can survive a few months with having their entire revenue stream cut off. Legit or illegal. Small businesses never have months of cash on hand to survive for months while this crap winds through court...let alone pay for defense lawyers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"SOPA ups the stakes on both sides, and finally puts the content grifters at the same "risk" level as the content makers. Seems like the playing field is levelling out."

There's still no penalties for copyfraud or false claims, which the "content posessors" (not content makers, since content makers are not the companies, but individuals) use helter-skelter without repercussions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sure.. "the receiving party can do a little due diligence and find out that their claims appear to be fraudulent" at which point RIAA/MPAA or some other very wealthy group drags them into court and buries them under so much legal crap that they can't afford to continue to do business.

Again, the little startup with two people who are about to make the next big thing more then likely can't afford a lawyer to "sue your stupid ass into the ground for your baseless accusations". As written in the bill there is no consequence of making such a 'baseless accusation" so don't say the the government will step in either.

Re:

If these tech companies can't find a way to make their money off something other than illegal infringement, then their business model is bad and they need to adapt and find a new one.

If you can't find away to at least address people's concerns about the collateral damage of this bill, and instead continue to insist that it is only about stopping people who make money from infringement, then please go away - the grownups are talking.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Not at all, and I can prove it to you any time you want.

What SOPA will do is kill business everywhere, I'm sure they will rebound, but it won't be the same thing, since it will make almost impossible for people with little to no money to create any kind of business in an environment that is so against doing business.

Pirates on the other hand has nothing to fear, that is why you won't see tones of people going to the streets claiming their rights are being trampled, they won't see the difference, they won't be affected by it, they still can rip any plastic disc, they still can trade between themselves and even send those things to others. SOPA does nothing to address that.

SOPA is the tool of incompetent cowards that can't make it on their own.

I hope the lady in the office knows something I don't and it is right that copyright will disappear, then maybe we can all go on with our lifes and produce something instead of fighting.

You need more ten years to realize people won't stop pirating? What that is not enough you need another 20 years to come to grips with it? Fine I the pirate can wait.

Re:

Re:

in response to:

'If these tech companies can't find a way to make their money off something other than illegal infringement, then their business model is bad and they need to adapt and find a new one.'

if the entertainment industries and rights holders can't find a way of making a living, other than shutting down competition and suing customers, then their business model is bad and they need to adapt and find a new one!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Hammers, Nails and Screwdrivers aren't illegal. Murdering people with them is, though.

My point was the SOPA making Google liable for a third party uploading infringing content when it's also possible to upload non-infringing content is analogous to making Home Depot liable for selling a Hammer to someone who would then go on to smash someone else's skull and kill him when the hammer could also be used for non-murderous carpentry work.

Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."

It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.

Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

Just take me as basically in agreement with her.

No matter how much you write on this, Mike, you haven't said anything but that it MAY wipe out the species of grifters who leverage studio content. -- Well, and that the rest of us should be against it for FEAR that it'll affect 1st Amendment speech.

But looks like you're at the point of diminishing returns, not even getting as many comments as you're writing!

Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

Mike is very careful to ignore the large number of grifters in play, and rather, he focuses on the edges, the rare exceptions, the "censorship" scare tactics, and tries to act like that is what it is all about.

It's typical, and explains why many of Mike's rants over the years are so amusing to pick at, because he tends to ignore the big points to try to score his little ones instead.

There may be an elephant in the room, but Mike will complain about the type of doorknob used on the closet. The elephant ain't important, look at that damn doorknob!

The potentially and possible first amendment issues (which have long since been resolved by the courts) are small compared to the scale of piracy and "content grifting" online. But Mike doesn't want to talk about it.

Re: Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

Even if this was entirely true, those "edge cases" are important. The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... " therefore, if those "edge cases" are protected speech that gets killed, then there is something wrong with the law.

More so, we have courts for stuff like this, there is no reason not to go through the courts, which this law tries to do. One industry shouldn't have the ability to force their will upon others without a court of law saying they can.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

It's already been shown by constitutional scholars that there are no first amendment issues with SOPA.

It's already been asserted by one first amendment lawyer, being paid by the MPAA, that there are no first amendment issues with SOPA, and even he admits that there will be collateral damage from the bill.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

You are the only one who keeps claiming that this is about keeping piracy alive.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Mike (and many others here) have stated that this isn't about piracy in the first place, but the first amendment issues that this law DOES have. No matter what your bought-and-paid-for lawyer said.

oh and don't forget that even though they need SOPA to stop all the "piracy" they continually keep posting those record breaking quarterly results and keep ramping up the stock options available to their double digit million dollar earning CEO's.

Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

Grifting? Why won't pro-copyright people use the word infringement. Is it just too many letters? Is it just not scary enough?

The point is that yes, if passed then for the next few years SOPA will be used as intended. The major infringing websites will be outcast from the American internet (still available to the rest of the world). Goodbye Pirate Bay. The government will cheer their efforts as highly successful.

What will they do with SOPA then? They'll start using it against more and more questionable websites that might threaten their business interests. They'll blur the line between "rogue website" and "legit website" (a line that's already pretty blurry) and suddenly the websites Mike is talking about will be taken off-line. Major court battles will ensue until the media companies lose.

So what then? They'll ask for even more power from the government and complain again about how their industry is dying. The point is, they will never, ever stop seeking greater and greater power. They simply want control of all content on the internet.

God forbid the government ever take power away from the media. I'll never see that happen in my lifetime.

Re: Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

I agree with you. This will be abused. Human history proves this so well that I don't need to cite examples.

And because the American public is not informed by the talking heads of the media, almost to a person I know, is unaware of SOPA.. And if they are aware, they are so apathetic about it, they figure they will never be affected by it.

I'm sickened by this.

And to be clear, I feel that content creators should get their due. Just not at the loss of freedoms. I freely admit I enjoy the TV show and movies I watch. I listen to Pandora 90% of my waking day. I've bought way too many movies and music to admit to the actual number.

Does it have to come to this? Really? Is there no one smart enough to find a better solution?

Re: Re: Yay for "Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights"!

The fact that you are A: not a registered member, and B: Speaking the steriotypical industry bullshit line, tells me that C: You are obviously BIAS and thus have something to gain by your vague, and lackluster attempts to distract from the real discussion. As such I label you a Paid Industry Employee. Please see yourself out the door.

It's old fashioned, but...

If you kill somebody with a gun, you are the responsible party, not the shop that sold it to you, the person you borrowed it from, the owner of the place you decided to do it, the manufacturer of the gun or ammunition, the paper you saw the gun advertised in.
If you download content to which you have no license or rights, surely you are the responsible party again, not the ISP, the search engine you found it on, the site with the link.
If you pirate content, you're responsible and should face the consequences.
If you make your money by distributing pirated content, you're responsible and should face the consequences.
If you're (for example) the owner of a search engine that allows results to certain content, but do not supply that content, you are not responsible, you should not face the consequences.
People will alwys find a way around what they consider over zealous censoring, and if that means a LOT of people doing it, maybe it is a tad over the top?

Re: It's old fashioned, but...

If the gun store tells you who to shoot, pays you to do the shooting, sends someone along to hold the gun, calls the victim in to make sure they get there, and loads the weapon for you, there is more than enough liablity to go around.

"If you make your money by distributing pirated content, you're responsible and should face the consequences.
If you're (for example) the owner of a search engine that allows results to certain content, but do not supply that content, you are not responsible, you should not face the consequences."

Yet, if you make a "search engine" that only points to pirated content, and sorts the results based on the popularity of the download, and provides "express" download options for the content (served from other sites...), you need to be held responsible.

TPB is a perfect example here: It's intent (sworn and stated) is to help people violate copyright. Why the fuck should the site still be up?

Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Nope - but there is no reason why a site should be able to sit offshore and provide illegal services to Americans.

Would you tolerate a child porn site operating in the UK? After all, their topless models can be 16. Should they be allowed to market it in the US because they aren't based in the US?

Forced marriage of children is legal or accepted in many countries in the middle east and Africa. Do you think it would be acceptable to market child brides to American man, because the marriage will only happen outside of the US?

How about hookers? Do you think it acceptable to sell flights and hotels to Thailand, that feature "hookers included" because it is legal or tolerated their? Perhaps if the hookers were underage?

Being offshore but marketing to Americans should mean that they are subject to US law. The EU has made it clear that if you are not following their privacy guidelines, you really shouldn't market to EU citizens. Germany blocks sites it deems harmful to children, has a whole tribunal to do it, and forced Google and others to block the site from their listings. The internet doesn't break as a result, they are just enforcing their local laws - regardless of the location of the website.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

"Would you tolerate a child porn site operating in the UK? After all, their topless models can be 16. Should they be allowed to market it in the US because they aren't based in the US?"
Actually, it's 18.

Are you saying that Americans are not allowed to know what other countries do and do not do? To not know what other countries accept as part of their culture? To not be allowed to go to a holiday destination because prostitution is legal there? To not be able to go to the UK because the age of sexual consent is 16 (note; not sexual/topless/glamour modelling).

Your argument would be rather weak if you only knew what the government wants you to know.

I'll choose freedom thanks, innocent until proven guilty and all that gubbins.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Either provide empirical, non-industry evidence for your position or give a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site, AC 148. And answer AC 144's question to his/her satisfaction. Now. If you do not, you will only be proving yourself a liar and a shill.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

The fact is that international law already addresses the issues you are flaunting. International law says, the law that is applipical is the law which holds jurisdiction over the individual in question, especially when that person is inside a countries borders, is first local laws, then the law of their home country. Child porn is sick, but if it is legal in a country, and IF they put it online, it is still illegal for an American to view, and that individual is still subject to the full penalty of American Law. Beyond that, its up to the politicians to put whatever pressure they can on a country to change the local law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

"Nope - but there is no reason why a site should be able to sit offshore and provide illegal services to Americans."

How about those corporate banks based offshore that allow big business to avoid taxes in the states due to their money not being housed in an American bank?

Or the offshore "corporate" offices in Europe that companies claim as their hq to dodge American taxes even when the entire company is based in America?

Your statement is flawed. If you want to firewall te US Internet with stupidly overreaching bills like SOPA or eparasites, and revert to a Monroe doctrine when it comes to the Internet, then perhaps we should sever all communication mediums that can lead you outside the country as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

"Nope - but there is no reason why a site should be able to sit offshore and provide illegal services to Americans."

How about those corporate banks based offshore that allow big business to avoid taxes in the states due to their money not being housed in an American bank?

Or the offshore "corporate" offices in Europe that companies claim as their hq to dodge American taxes even when the entire company is based in America?

Your statement is flawed. If you want to firewall te US Internet with stupidly overreaching bills like SOPA or eparasites, and revert to a Monroe doctrine when it comes to the Internet, then perhaps we should sever all communication mediums that can lead you outside the country as well.

Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

If the gun store tells you who to shoot, pays you to do the shooting, sends someone along to hold the gun, calls the victim in to make sure they get there, and loads the weapon for you, there is more than enough liablity to go around.

No, there's nothing without proof.

Yet, if you make a "search engine" that only points to pirated content, and sorts the results based on the popularity of the download, and provides "express" download options for the content (served from other sites...), you need to be held responsible.

Again, not really, you're in a market that's not being served. That's a business-model issue, NOT a legislative, like SOPA.

TPB is a perfect example here: It's intent (sworn and stated) is to help people violate copyright. Why the fuck should the site still be up?

Which is most, but not all, of what it does. SOPA is shit law designed to serve a few morons who are acting like Canute, demanding that as King, the tide turns back.

Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

"TPB is a perfect example here: It's intent (sworn and stated) is to help people violate copyright. Why the fuck should the site still be up?"

Simple: they are a search engine. They don't store infringing files. In fact, they don't infringe on anything...ever. They just point over there and say "you can get movies there". Is that a crime?

Eliminating TPB does nothing to further the cause of copyright. You just kicked down a signpost. The infringement is still occurring and will continue to occur until you catch and punish all seeders and leechers. With a twisted plus: the Bittorrent protocol is mostly self-sustaining.

Bittorrent, technically, doesn't need an external search engine to locate torrents. As long as you have people willing to seed, finding content is as easy as asking every bittorrent node your client can see "Who has torrent X?". The nodes will be more than happy to point you towards it, or ask other nodes where it is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Doesn't matter a jot, get rid of all the worlds indexing sites and piracy will still occur, write down your postal address and I'll send you a hard drive full of the latest movies, TV shows and music...

Everytime you stop something from working to share files we'll just create something new and start again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

But would that happen after SOPA comes into force? You can't answer that can you, you can make a guess that's all... and that's why you will never get it, you make the law to be black and white but laws aren't like that they are open to interpretation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

by that logic, let's reinstate capital punishment. there were only a few cases where we executed innocent people because they weren't given proper due process and were bullied by the police into false confessions. who really care about those few people?

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

A few examples of legal behavior do not exonerate illegal behavior.

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't dump the tea into the harbor -- the tea doesn't belong to us, it belongs to England, as we do, and by us dumping the tea into the harbor, an illegal act which will get us hung for treason, we will not be exonerated by the fact that we want to be free of English tyranny and taxation without representation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
.....

32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. "

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's old fashioned, but...

>A few examples of legal behavior do not exonerate illegal behavior.

Likewise, a few alleged likely cases (Thomas-Rasset and Tenebaum) do not exonerate all the kindergarteners, senior citizens, dead people and printers you've managed to catch in your ruthless driftnets.

Soooo

So, I have a question about SOPA. Would SOPA allow me, as a webmaster, to demand that a large multinational corporation have its funding shut down if I found that one of its branches/divisions/employees/etc. had copied and was distributing an article or photo of mine?

Re: Soooo

Re: Soooo

"So, I have a question about SOPA. Would SOPA allow me, as a webmaster, to demand that a large multinational corporation have its funding shut down if I found that one of its branches/divisions/employees/etc. had copied and was distributing an article or photo of mine?"

Silly man, did you think this law was for you? Why on earth would we use this law against rich people?!

Re: Re:

Yes, because the poor copyright holders are running scared of a few pirates, that they are running to their congress mommas. And there they are even so scared of opposition that they stack the discussion against those who oppose (like 99% of the US population).

Re:

You're free not to read this site if you don't like the focus on the most important issue of the time. Go read a few stories about vapid celebrities while the rest of us discuss the important issues - you won't be missed so don't hurry back.

Never mind tech companies

What do the makers or cork wall boards think of this? If they enable me to post a picture that I don't own the copyright to, they should be made to run around and take it down or stop selling their nefarious cork wall boards - or else.

Re: Re:

Re:

"Where it would be the most effective: Google.com."

I agree that would be the most effective location. The single most effective location possible in fact. However, even Google is subject to its share holders, and how would those share holders react? They would FLIP OUT, especially granny who can't find her crossword. Larry and Sergy would be out of a job in a heart beat if they did that.

It is in my opinion is that we have not had copyright law in the U.S. since the 1976 copyright act. The only justification I can think of for the current length and breadth copyright is either a title of nobility or author's right.

And no argument for copyright should be valid if the same reasoning can be used for a creation of a title of nobility or author's right.

Re: Mastercard?

Re: Mastercard?

You're not the only one who missed it in Mike's wall of (by now almost boilerplate) text. I went back and used search to find it. Then, NO SURPRISE that Mastercard wants more time. YET, they reliably manage within a few seconds at the checkout counter to determine whether I've enough numbers in my account. That's all just expected legalistic hedging; Mike is grabbing at straws.

SOPA Dopa

There is not a creative thought left I Hollywood nor in most of the so-called halls of creativity. They can’t seem to capitalize on the independents film and music producers, and those that would profit from theft of their precious creative endeavors, if you can call them that. These are the same creative geniuses that give us rehashed comic book hero’s replete with CGI that would knock you to your knees, because there is no story of note. Or, remakes of remakes because their version is Oh So Much better than that 1950’s original, and because no one in these bastions of entertainment genius has had a creative though since their 1960’s acid trip. Whatever happened to a good story, or is it that they can’t find a way to appropriate the story from the author?

When will they start regulating the recording of personally owned media? Will I need a copy separate copy of the original is I want to play it on iPad, iPod, CD, MP3; where will this end? Will they monitor the number of non-family members at my parties where I choose to play recorded music or a personal (purchased) copy of a movie to entertain my friends? Will I need to pay ASCAP and BMI when I play music on my patio; after all the neighbors may hear it.

"The premise of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns and can license to others certain exclusive rights"

Um, no. The premise of copyright law is that the public gets the benefit of works from creators in exchange for a limited monopoly on rights related to the work.

"a premise that has served the nation well since 1790."

Fair enough. If it worked fine in 1790, let's revert back to it. 14 year duration with 14 more on renewal, divided by the increased rate in publication and distribution. I'm thinking somewhere around 2 years with a 2 year renewal.

"Congress has repeatedly acted to improve enforcement provisions in copyright law over the years, including in the online environment."

Acting to do something and actually doing something are two different things, especially when you know nothing about how the underlying mechanisms of the system you're trying to change work. You will have to get totalitarian if you ever want to curb infringement in a significant way and that sacrifice of freedom is not worth the millions of dollars that your campaign contributors will dole out to you as a reward for your complicity.

Re:

2 years with a 2 year renewal.

Pfft. You probably think 5 microseconds is too long of a copyright term. I say 50-ish years maximum, like we had when Steamboat Willie was made: Not too short as to not build a strong enough prospective incentive to create, and not too long for a perpetual rent-seek like we have now.

Re: Re:

The 26 plus 26 (if you do the paperwork) year duration was fine for everyone until Disney realized their earliest material was about to fall into public domain.
Then the S#!t hit the fan as their people began lobbying to increase the duration of copyright.
(Not that it stopped Disney from taking advantage of other people's work falling into public domain, like Kipling's Jungle Book...)
And, of course, every time the copyright term is about to expire on post-1924 material, who's up there lobbying for an extension?
Disney!

Re: Re: Re:

You won't get any argument from me.

I'm against what Disney is doing by permanently extending copyrights. At the same time, I don't want copyright to be so short so as to be meaningless.

Then again, the copyright régime brought on the legacy content industries in reaction to new technologies (especially the internet) has more of an effect of destroying the very copyright they hold dear. After all, democracy is better than the police state we have now.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Look at when the profits are made on media. Box office sales and then DVD sales and digital downloads - usually done within a year of release.

Not to mention that every authorized derivative work gets its own copyright, so when the video game comes out a year or two after the movie, it gets its own 4 years.

And when fans don't like what George Lucas has done with the new trilogy 4 years later, someone with professional editing and effects skills can legally shoot new scenes and add new plotlines into the footage that wasn't so bad and make a new, legal product that actually gives the customers what they want! And if its not good enough, someone else can come up with another version.

So annoying

I was watching the end of the hearing, and the guy at the end said that noone had disagreed that piracy is causing job losses and costing billions of dollars, so if its incontravertable then something needs to be done, whether the bill has unintended consequences or not, something has to be done...

When you only invite people to speak who don't have that view point, it's not really that surprising that none of them disagreed, maybe if they had invited some people who had a differing view point things might have been different (the lady from google only really addressed things that affect google)

It's All Over....

The woman from Google, who was speaking on behalf of the Net Coalition, Yahoo, Ebay, CEA, etc, etc threw in the towel and said that they (all of them) support cutting off funding through payment processors and ad networks. So that part of the bill is a done deal. The fight will be over delisting and will be an uphill battle particularly after proponents hammer away on the existence of alternate payment systems and their potential rise (thanks for the help Jay).

Issa says he'll propose some cockamamie "infringement court"-a streamlined federal court to exclusively handle infringement. Of course, in these times of austerity it is a fantasy at best. The Google witness got trapped after she gave her rendition of free speech and was asked by Mr. Watt if a child porn site that also had the King James bible on it was able to be shut down under her definition of free speech. She wouldn't answer.

The battle lines will be drawn over the definition of "rogue sites" and the DNS issue. I expect we will see some language that will better immunize lip syncers, and other non-commercial, marginal types of infringement.

Finally, Techdirtbag Nation got mentioned by name for its ill-advised attack on the firefighters. So now Masnick, you're not an ordinary douchebag, you've made it into the Congressional record as a douchebag. Congratulations.

It's All Over....

The woman from Google, who was speaking on behalf of the Net Coalition, Yahoo, Ebay, CEA, etc, etc threw in the towel and said that they (all of them) support cutting off funding through payment processors and ad networks. So that part of the bill is a done deal. The fight will be over delisting and will be an uphill battle particularly after proponents hammer away on the existence of alternate payment systems and their potential rise (thanks for the help Jay).

Issa says he'll propose some cockamamie "infringement court"-a streamlined federal court to exclusively handle infringement. Of course, in these times of austerity it is a fantasy at best. The Google witness got trapped after she gave her rendition of free speech and was asked by Mr. Watt if a child porn site that also had the King James bible on it was able to be shut down under her definition of free speech. She wouldn't answer.

The battle lines will be drawn over the definition of "rogue sites" and the DNS issue. I expect we will see some language that will better immunize lip syncers, and other non-commercial, marginal types of infringement.

Finally, Techdirtbag Nation got mentioned by name for its ill-advised attack on the firefighters. So now Masnick, you're not an ordinary douchebag, you've made it into the Congressional record as a douchebag. Congratulations.

Re: It's All Over....

"O'Leary continues to spin yarns. Next up, he suggests that the real reason people use computers, mobile phones or gaming systems is to watch a movie or TV show. This is the way Hollywood has always viewed the internet, by the way."

I am relatively new to computers, learned how to turn one on in 2001(had 8-tracks as a kid), and newer to the internet, but it has always been the worlds largest library to me.

Won't take too many times of finding all the drawers are missing from the index file for me to cancel my $45/month capped membership fee.

Cut off my Linux fix by banning torrents before I decide to download another distro? Gone in 60 fucking seconds! Unless of course they are experiencing higher than normal call volumes due to everyone else cancelling as well.

I've always been a reader. My local library may not be open 24/7, but there is plenty to read!

I just want..

I just want to keep doing the thing I love most which is fandubbing clips from animes. I don't gain a profit, it doesn't hurt the industry (no proof for, or against that claim), and it's done out of respect and homage to the original source material. Please don't take that away from me. It's part of my joy in life and I don't have the time, talent, nor money to make my own anime to dub or purchase the rights to use an anime.